gardenweasel said:
i would guess a great majority of posters on this political forum are no shows
Leftist reporter puts his spin on a bombing
- Thread starter dr. freeze
- Start date
i would guess a great majority of posters on this political forum are no shows
I voted for Bush the first time, there is no way I could ever vote for kerry or gore. I vote in every local election, and support locals with money and time. I couldn't pull the trigger in the last one.gardenweasel said:
Thanks for the complement, the fact that my stuff is way to obtuse for you confirms that I'm on the right track. I'm out front,your still trying to figure out Ms Clinton. LOL
If you see it --its got to be true?
PATV's False Impressions
Palestinian Authority Television has repeatedly broadcast video of an Israeli missile boat firing at Gaza juxtaposed with images of seven Palestinians who died on a Gaza beach Friday ? giving the impression that Israelis caused the deaths.
Israel has denied responsibility, saying the deaths more than likely resulted from Hamas explosives. The doctored images show the boat firing on a Gaza beach, while audio of sirens is added to suggest ambulances were already on the scene. Palestinian Media Watch says the Israeli naval video was clearly unrelated, having been released to the media and on the Internet at 4 p.m. on Friday, an hour prior to any of the deaths.
Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006
"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?
No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.
Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."
This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.
So we have a smaller fraction.
But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."
We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.
Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."
Dr. Wibj?rn Karl?n, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."
But Karl?n clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karl?n concludes.
The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.
Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."
Karl?n explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karl?n
Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."
Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."
Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."
Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."
In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.
PATV's False Impressions
Palestinian Authority Television has repeatedly broadcast video of an Israeli missile boat firing at Gaza juxtaposed with images of seven Palestinians who died on a Gaza beach Friday ? giving the impression that Israelis caused the deaths.
Israel has denied responsibility, saying the deaths more than likely resulted from Hamas explosives. The doctored images show the boat firing on a Gaza beach, while audio of sirens is added to suggest ambulances were already on the scene. Palestinian Media Watch says the Israeli naval video was clearly unrelated, having been released to the media and on the Internet at 4 p.m. on Friday, an hour prior to any of the deaths.
Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006
"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."
But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?
No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.
Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."
This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.
So we have a smaller fraction.
But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."
We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.
Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"
Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."
Dr. Wibj?rn Karl?n, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."
But Karl?n clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karl?n concludes.
The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.
Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."
Karl?n explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karl?n
Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."
Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."
Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."
Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."
In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.
Marine may call Murtha as witness
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
June 15, 2006
A criminal defense attorney for a Marine under investigation in the Haditha killings says he will call a senior Democratic congressman as a trial witness, if his client is charged, to find out who told the lawmaker that U.S. troops are guilty of cold-blooded murder.
Attorney Neal A. Puckett told The Washington Times that Gen. Michael Hagee, the Marine commandant, briefed Rep. John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat, on the Nov. 19 killings of 24 Iraqis in the town north of Baghdad. Mr. Murtha later told reporters that the Marines were guilty of killing the civilians in "cold blood." Mr. Murtha said he based his statement on Marine commanders, whom he did not identify.
Mr. Puckett said such public comments from a congressman via senior Marines amount to "unlawful command influence." He said potential Marine jurors could be biased by the knowledge that their commandant, the Corps' top officer, thinks the Haditha Marines are guilty.
"Congressman Murtha will be one of the first witnesses I call to the witness stand," Mr. Puckett said yesterday.
Mr. Puckett represents Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, an eight-year Marine who was a key participant in the Haditha operations that resulted in the 24 civilian deaths.
The attorney said Sgt. Wuterich, 26, the married father of two daughters, led the squad of Kilo Company that mounted the four major combat actions on Nov. 19 that resulted in 23 deaths at a traffic stop and in three houses. The 24th Iraqi was killed while fleeing a home by a rooftop-stationed Marine or Marines, Mr. Puckett said.
The attorney said his client strongly rejects accusations in the press from Haditha residents that Marines lined up some of the civilians and executed them. Mr. Puckett said Sgt. Wuterich maintains that such an incident never occurred, and that Marines followed proper procedures in clearing the three houses.
"What's being reported out there, it seems an awful lot of it is inaccurate," Mr. Puckett said. He said his client, stationed at Camp Pendleton, Calif., has been promoted to platoon leader and is not under confinement.
"How would you feel to be falsely accused of killing innocent people," the attorney said. "He was angered and hurt by it because he doesn't understand how the public could think he and his Marines could do such a thing."
Col. Dave Lapan, a spokesman at Marine Corps headquarters at the Pentagon, said Mr. Murtha was one of eight senior House members and senators briefed by Gen. Hagee in May on the investigation. "I don't know what he told them," Col. Lapan said.
A spokesman for Mr. Murtha did not return a message yesterday seeking comment.
The Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) is expected to finish its probe by August, at which time Lt. Gen. John F. Sattler, who commands the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force at Pendleton, will decide whether to bring charges that could include murder.
"If the NCIS has done a good job in this investigation, then Marine commanders will not feel compelled to charge these guys with homicide," Mr. Puckett said.
"But since Congressman Murtha has already judged these guys in public and folks have alleged a Marine Corp cover-up, I'm afraid that the Marine Corps will feel compelled to put these guys on trial to prove the Marine Corps hasn't done anything wrong in terms of a cover-up."
On Nov. 19, Haditha remained one of the most dangerous and rebellious towns in Anbar province, a haven for both Sunni Muslim insurgents loyal to ousted dictator Saddam Hussein and foreign jihadists. The U.S. command in Baghdad had sent Marines on a "persistent presence" mission to pacify the area for Dec. 15 parliamentary elections. Lima Company, an Ohio Reserve unit that Kilo Marines replaced, suffered high fatality rates while patrolling Haditha.
That Saturday, Marine units were under attack at various points in Haditha when an improvised explosive device (IED) took out one of the vehicles in Sgt. Wuterich's patrol. The blast killed Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas, a popular member of the 3rd Battalion, 1st Regiment.
Mr. Puckett gave this version of events based on his discussions with Sgt. Wuterich:
After the blast, the Marines set up a defensive perimeter, and called in a quick-reaction force to find out who had placed and remotely detonated the IED.
A car appeared with five Iraqi men inside. Marines, in Arabic, ordered them to halt. The five exited the car. Rather than heed the orders, the men started to run. Sgt. Wuterich and other Marines opened fire, killing the Iraqis. Marines at the time considered Iraqis running after an attack and disobeying orders as confirmation of hostile intent, Mr. Puckett said. He said that sometime after Jan. 1, commanders no longer permitted such a response.
Next, a shot was fired from a home near the perimeter. Someone in the squad recommended clearing the homes along that block. Sgt. Wuterich agreed and gained permission from a second lieutenant platoon leader, who did not take part in the raids.
The Marines then fired grenades to "prep" the first house and went in. All rooms were empty, except one, from where Marines heard "rustling." A Marine, not Sgt. Wuterich, tossed in a grenade and then opened fire, killing all in the room.
The Marines then entered a second house, encountered Iraqis and killed them.
"They're chasing the insurgents who were shooting at them," Mr. Puckett said.
Hours later, they decided to raid a third house based on suspicious behavior. The first Marine to enter spotted four men inside, one holding an AK-47. The Marine's M-16 jammed. He pulled out a 9mm pistol and killed all four.
Sgt. Wuterich, before counting all the bodies, radioed the battalion command and reported that 12 to 15 Iraqis were killed by Marines after the IED attack. He said there was "collateral damage," military speak for civilian deaths.
"My client did nothing contrary to his training on that day," Mr. Puckett said. "Some [of those killed] were innocent. Others, you will never know whether they were innocent civilians or not."
The next day, the 2nd Marine Division released a statement that 15 Iraqis were killed by an IED and firefight. The statement was inaccurate. An Army general is investigating whether it was part of a broad cover-up.
By Rowan Scarborough
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
June 15, 2006
A criminal defense attorney for a Marine under investigation in the Haditha killings says he will call a senior Democratic congressman as a trial witness, if his client is charged, to find out who told the lawmaker that U.S. troops are guilty of cold-blooded murder.
Attorney Neal A. Puckett told The Washington Times that Gen. Michael Hagee, the Marine commandant, briefed Rep. John P. Murtha, Pennsylvania Democrat, on the Nov. 19 killings of 24 Iraqis in the town north of Baghdad. Mr. Murtha later told reporters that the Marines were guilty of killing the civilians in "cold blood." Mr. Murtha said he based his statement on Marine commanders, whom he did not identify.
Mr. Puckett said such public comments from a congressman via senior Marines amount to "unlawful command influence." He said potential Marine jurors could be biased by the knowledge that their commandant, the Corps' top officer, thinks the Haditha Marines are guilty.
"Congressman Murtha will be one of the first witnesses I call to the witness stand," Mr. Puckett said yesterday.
Mr. Puckett represents Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, an eight-year Marine who was a key participant in the Haditha operations that resulted in the 24 civilian deaths.
The attorney said Sgt. Wuterich, 26, the married father of two daughters, led the squad of Kilo Company that mounted the four major combat actions on Nov. 19 that resulted in 23 deaths at a traffic stop and in three houses. The 24th Iraqi was killed while fleeing a home by a rooftop-stationed Marine or Marines, Mr. Puckett said.
The attorney said his client strongly rejects accusations in the press from Haditha residents that Marines lined up some of the civilians and executed them. Mr. Puckett said Sgt. Wuterich maintains that such an incident never occurred, and that Marines followed proper procedures in clearing the three houses.
"What's being reported out there, it seems an awful lot of it is inaccurate," Mr. Puckett said. He said his client, stationed at Camp Pendleton, Calif., has been promoted to platoon leader and is not under confinement.
"How would you feel to be falsely accused of killing innocent people," the attorney said. "He was angered and hurt by it because he doesn't understand how the public could think he and his Marines could do such a thing."
Col. Dave Lapan, a spokesman at Marine Corps headquarters at the Pentagon, said Mr. Murtha was one of eight senior House members and senators briefed by Gen. Hagee in May on the investigation. "I don't know what he told them," Col. Lapan said.
A spokesman for Mr. Murtha did not return a message yesterday seeking comment.
The Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) is expected to finish its probe by August, at which time Lt. Gen. John F. Sattler, who commands the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force at Pendleton, will decide whether to bring charges that could include murder.
"If the NCIS has done a good job in this investigation, then Marine commanders will not feel compelled to charge these guys with homicide," Mr. Puckett said.
"But since Congressman Murtha has already judged these guys in public and folks have alleged a Marine Corp cover-up, I'm afraid that the Marine Corps will feel compelled to put these guys on trial to prove the Marine Corps hasn't done anything wrong in terms of a cover-up."
On Nov. 19, Haditha remained one of the most dangerous and rebellious towns in Anbar province, a haven for both Sunni Muslim insurgents loyal to ousted dictator Saddam Hussein and foreign jihadists. The U.S. command in Baghdad had sent Marines on a "persistent presence" mission to pacify the area for Dec. 15 parliamentary elections. Lima Company, an Ohio Reserve unit that Kilo Marines replaced, suffered high fatality rates while patrolling Haditha.
That Saturday, Marine units were under attack at various points in Haditha when an improvised explosive device (IED) took out one of the vehicles in Sgt. Wuterich's patrol. The blast killed Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas, a popular member of the 3rd Battalion, 1st Regiment.
Mr. Puckett gave this version of events based on his discussions with Sgt. Wuterich:
After the blast, the Marines set up a defensive perimeter, and called in a quick-reaction force to find out who had placed and remotely detonated the IED.
A car appeared with five Iraqi men inside. Marines, in Arabic, ordered them to halt. The five exited the car. Rather than heed the orders, the men started to run. Sgt. Wuterich and other Marines opened fire, killing the Iraqis. Marines at the time considered Iraqis running after an attack and disobeying orders as confirmation of hostile intent, Mr. Puckett said. He said that sometime after Jan. 1, commanders no longer permitted such a response.
Next, a shot was fired from a home near the perimeter. Someone in the squad recommended clearing the homes along that block. Sgt. Wuterich agreed and gained permission from a second lieutenant platoon leader, who did not take part in the raids.
The Marines then fired grenades to "prep" the first house and went in. All rooms were empty, except one, from where Marines heard "rustling." A Marine, not Sgt. Wuterich, tossed in a grenade and then opened fire, killing all in the room.
The Marines then entered a second house, encountered Iraqis and killed them.
"They're chasing the insurgents who were shooting at them," Mr. Puckett said.
Hours later, they decided to raid a third house based on suspicious behavior. The first Marine to enter spotted four men inside, one holding an AK-47. The Marine's M-16 jammed. He pulled out a 9mm pistol and killed all four.
Sgt. Wuterich, before counting all the bodies, radioed the battalion command and reported that 12 to 15 Iraqis were killed by Marines after the IED attack. He said there was "collateral damage," military speak for civilian deaths.
"My client did nothing contrary to his training on that day," Mr. Puckett said. "Some [of those killed] were innocent. Others, you will never know whether they were innocent civilians or not."
The next day, the 2nd Marine Division released a statement that 15 Iraqis were killed by an IED and firefight. The statement was inaccurate. An Army general is investigating whether it was part of a broad cover-up.
